Frank commentary from an unretired call girl

Real Men Support Sex Worker Rights

Men who don’t like girls with brains don’t like girls. – Mignon McLaughlin

Last Saturday (April 16th) we talked about Demi Moore’s ridiculous and insulting new campaign to convince people that “real men” don’t hire prostitutes (whom she of course equates with “trafficked child sex slaves”). So it would follow that in Moore’s mind, “real men” don’t support women’s right to do what we like with our own bodies, which frankly sounds like some kind of retro male-chauvinist propaganda to me. I’ve got news for you, Demi; all heterosexual men buy sex, including your boy-toy. Some actually pay cash, others pay for it in varying concrete or abstract ways, but they ALL pay and you very well know it unless you’re a lot stupider than I thought you were. Only weak, pathetic little bullies need to try to restrict women’s sexual choices in order to feel like “real men”, but truly real men (the kind without scare quotes) aren’t threatened by sexually aware women; they are secure enough in their masculinity to recognize women have the right to control our own bodies and to decide whom we want to bestow our favors upon and for what reason. In short, only insecure sissies want to suppress women’s right to sexual self-determination; real men support the right of women to make our own sexual choices, including the decision to engage in sex work if we are so inclined.

In the current climate of misandrist hysteria, every man is considered a potential rapist, child molester or “sex trafficker”, so it’s not surprising when spineless men line up to be counted among the ranks of the politically correct whore-bashers. It’s one thing for a woman to support sex worker rights because we’re not under a permanent cloud of suspicion, but these days it takes some serious balls for a man to stand up, demand rights for sex workers, and actually sign his real name to the thing. So whenever I find such an essay online I like to call attention to it because such men deserve our thanks; I found one such, written by Newsday editor Daniel Akst, in the Boston Herald of April 14th, and I’ve reproduced it here in its entirety because I feel I have no right to cut it:

Remember Chandra Levy? How about Natalee Holloway? Nothing is more effective at triggering a media frenzy than the disappearance of an attractive young white woman. That’s what happened when Levy, a Washington intern, vanished in 2001 and Holloway disappeared in Aruba four years later. Sadly, things are different when the woman has accepted money for sex. Police have so far found the bodies of four young white women, all prostitutes, in scrubby dunes on the beaches of New York’s Long Island (five and possibly six more sets of remains are unidentified). The women had been missing for months or even years.

It’s hard to see what change in law might save someone from being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But some of the Gilgo Beach deaths might well have been averted if we could just get over the idea that laws against prostitution make the world a better place for women. Prostitution is distasteful to many people, of course, but that is no justification for laws against it, since on that basis Brussels sprouts and loud neckties might also be banned. The difference is that prostitution is supposedly harmful, and so the government bars people from trading sex for money. Yet the worst thing about prostitution is the risk of violence and abuse to which prostitutes are subjected by the very laws that drive the trade underground. In our eagerness to legislate virtue, we are endangering the lives of women.

It’s been said that prostitution degrades women. But it’s even more degrading to suggest women need society to make such choices for them — or to force prostitution into the shadows, where women are excluded from the protection of the law and subject to exploitation. Many people take the illegality of prostitution for granted, but the United States (aside from Nevada) is one of the few Western nations that make it a crime. And selling sex for money is safer in a regulated setting, as reported by women in legal brothels — in Nevada, the Netherlands and Australia — that have screening, surveillance and alarm systems. “Sex workers can be victimized anywhere,” says Ronald Weitzer, a George Washington University sociologist who has studied the subject, “but in general they are less vulnerable where their work has been decriminalized and where they no longer operate in a clandestine manner.”

It’s too late for the women found in the dunes. But their deaths can inspire us to save others by decriminalizing what they did for money, no matter how much we may disapprove of it.

Mr. Akst’s central argument that prohibitionist laws create most of our danger is one that sex worker rights advocates constantly make, and his point that patronizing laws are far more degrading than prostitution could ever be should seem very familiar to regular readers of this blog. I experienced such a wonderful feeling on reading this editorial that, were Mr. Akst’s office within easy driving distance, I would have hastened there and given him a big kiss (a sisterly one, Mrs. Akst; I promise!) But since he’s half a continent away I settled for just sending him a thank-you email. Maybe that’s something we should all do; whenever you see an article which supports decriminalization like this one does, take the time to locate the email address of its author and send him a short, sincere “thank you”. Since we know damned well that our enemies will be hurling vitriol at such authors for daring to support whores’ rights, I think they would like to know that we’re out there reading as well and appreciate someone having the courage to speak up on our behalf.

I guess he thinks that if he were an Average Joe, without a cent to his name, he’d still be going out with Scarlett Johansson. Plus, she’s more than young enough to be his daughter. What was that about not buying children?

I can’t wait until one of the stars from these campaigns really transgresses and gets (hopefully) hung out to dry by the media.

What’s amazing is how many translations one has to perform to make sense out of their rhetoric; when one “buys” a thing its ownership changes hands, but I don’t think that’s what they mean. For all my teasing, I don’t think they actually mean purchasing children as slaves and keeping them locked in closets and basements; i think they actually mean “hiring” when they say “buying”. And considering that the average age at which an UNDERAGE prostitute enters the trade is 16 (which is the age of consent in many states), they obviously don’t mean “children” when they say it. The actual meaning of their claim then becomes “real men don’t hire teenage prostitutes whom they might legally be able to have sex with if it were for free,” which might as well be “we’re trying to shame people outside the elite who hire prostitutes”. And there’s the meat buried under the “buy children for sex” stupidity.

I see the “real men don’t buy children” meme as upping the ante on the “all men are potential rapists” idea feminists push.

It’s not enough the average due has been recast as a rapist; now he’s a “pedophile,” a word thrown around to now connote any man who dates a woman more than 5 years his junior. Since men’s regular impulses are now not shamed by society, the Anti Sex League has to pretend he has other, more sinister impulses to shame men.

Here’s how bad it’s gotten: I put out a Debbie Gibson video on my FB page and someone commented “pervert.” She was 20 in the video, shot in early 1991, and I put it out because I had interviewed her and genuinely liked the song.

The irony is that most men actually can’t stand to be around kids other than their own (from my observation).

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be
much easier to deal with.” (‘Atlas Shrugged’ 1957)

I think that pretty well sums it up. We can have sex for free, but not for compensation? Who determines what the compensation is (if it’s not in cold hard cash, but gifts, etc?)

I agree with Daniel Akst’s short essay and find it a good example of how ideas can be transmitted sans hysteric rhetoric.

Which I think contrasts sharply with commentary such as this:

“I’ve got news for you, Demi; all heterosexual men buy sex, including your boy-toy. Some actually pay cash, others pay for it in varying concrete or abstract ways, but they ALL pay and you very well know it unless you’re a lot stupider than I thought you were.”

This is the kind of statement I mentioned a few days ago that I find to be self-satisfied and so broad and inclusive as to render itself pretty meaningless. It’s at least comparable in hysteria to Demi Moore’s statement(s) that real men don’t hire prostitutes. Both statements are in my view, empty empiricism and aptly mirror one another — if any research exists that backs either of these assertions, I’d be rather interested and/or eager to read it. However, much like Russell’s teapot, I doubt either is more than conjecture.

Shouldn’t we move beyond 50/50 Americana and begin expanding education/community/welfare programs which assist any and all who feel they need help/resources to either defend themselves or change the direction of their life, without social or legal stigma? Urging consent/dissent seems like wishful thinking. (For those who suggest that I do this myself, I do. My wife and I volunteer two nights a week; one night to fighting prop 8 and the other working at a women’s shelter; I also volunteer for an Art program for 2nd graders one morning a week and my wife works every Saturday with the Milo Foundation — this, in my experience, more-so than warring ideologies, brings about relief, and by extension, changes attitudes).

There are two big differences between Demi’s statement and mine, David:

1) Mine is on a personal blog, which I have never tried to pretend is objective, whereas hers are stated as facts in a high-profile ad campaign; and

2) Hers is a blatant attempt to shame most if not all men who hire prostitutes, men who have never insulted, harmed or offended her in any way; whereas mine is a blatant attempt to shame one person who has repeatedly insulted my profession and devoted a great deal of effort to drumming up hysteria directed toward establishing laws which make life more difficult and dangerous for my sisters.

That having been said, I don’t need “research” to tell me that virtually all men win or buy sex from women, whether by money, presents, promises or whatever. When I was young mothers were often heard to say, “why should a man buy a cow when he can get the milk for free?” and writer after writer after writer has penned quotes implying or stating the essential equality of wives and whores. If you’re going to claim that’s not so, I’m afraid the burden of proof is on you.

As for your final paragraph, I would LOVE to live in an America where everyone was free to live his life as he or she pleased without fear of assault by armed goons for breaking arbitrary “laws” against consensual behavior. However, the politicians do not want me to live in such a country, and neither, apparently, does Demi Moore.

YES, you put your money where your mouth is! The work you’re doing is wonderful. I’m so tired of the 1’s who only talk and do NOTHING. An example of it: a while back 2 co-workers were talking about a local murder case. I asked “have you thought of going to the surviving family/friends of the victim and offering them condolences, asking if they need anything, etc.?” My answer: silence and a hostile silence at that. What else is new? What a joke. I also brought up signing petitions to these people. I got the same reaction. Signing parole protest petitions takes very little time. But, they CARE so much! What a JOKE! Also, while I’m writing this, want to THANK YOU for the other day when you said you’re with me on being so tired of the mentality that includes: Everything costs. Nothing is free (funny, but I haven’t gotten a bill for the air I’ve breathed during my life so far YET…HHMM…eyeroll). Every single action in life is some kind of exchange. Everything is to be treated as a commodity. If you give anything away, the receiver won’t appreciate it (I love that 1! Funny, but over and over in my life and the lives of many others I’ve seen/read about, etc., the person receiving is very grateful. I’ve also seen it where those who are given to open their hearts more because of it and THEY start giving more.) Giving just because you love it and want to without wanting anything back is crazy, naive, shows you don’t value yourself and your property enough, etc. (eyeroll). Writing this makes me think of the God of the Bible. He gave so much because of His love and didn’t demand people love Him, serve Him, etc. He gave people the gift of FREE (uh oh, there’s that word again) will which allows them to reject Him if they want. He could have made everyone a mindless slave. He gave the world a Savior who never asked for a cent for anyone to hear His message and/or get healed. Jesus only took donations and never ordered anyone to give those either. OK, am going on here, but thinking and writing about this got me thinking about the God of the Bible. Anyway, thank you again because the truth is I feel very alone at times in this area. Even if I were the only 1 in the world who felt this way, I wouldn’t change it, BUT it gives comfort to hear about others! Also inspiration to keep going!

Something that’s always made me go GGGGRRR (like my cat D the Demon did…wink) is you think at times that all Christians (like me) can always explain 100% of why God does things, how He does them, etc., within past events. Even though God chose to punish whole groups of people with death more than once in the “good old days”, that doesn’t automatically mean He “demanded” that they love/serve Him. I think what you’re getting at is you believe he punished with death people who chose not to love Him and punished them for that reason only. Do you think it’s possible he warned them not to go after other “gods” because those gods were fake and in the long run would destroy them spiritually? Like a parent warning their kids not to run into the street without looking? That He said he was jealous out of caring? It’s possible for people to have some jealousy because they don’t want to see someone they love be influenced and “taken in” by evil people. You know I don’t “revel” in this stuff in the Old Testament. I struggle with it even though there still are whole groups of people who are ###***. And that now there’s people who have done so much evil they deserve the death penalty (I’m thinking of Dubya). I have struggles with the death penalty also even though in at least a few cases it’s fully deserved (only after a trial, though. You and I both hate these ###*** who want people to get DP without any trial, etc.) But, I thought we Protestants love killing, that we’re always part of the crowds cheering outside prisons during executions? RIGHT! (Eyeroll). Also, what about the people God spared? The people of Nineveh (too tired to see if I spelled that right) are an example. I see it like God could kill everyone at any time but has chosen not to. He could if he wanted to. He kept the promise He made after the Flood. I say be thankful to a degree for this! So I think I see what you’re getting at and I don’t have all the answers for it. I wish I did! Life would be easier if we had all the spiritual answers at all times. As I said above, I have big struggles with how He did punish whole groups of people with death. I can understand it to a degree (because of their repeated evils), but also find it tragic that people let themselves GET to that point and also reveled in getting to that point.

Years ago – more than a quarter of a century, actually – I came across a slogan-button that said “The average woman would rather have beauty than brains, because the average man can see better than he can think”.

What else could I do? I bought one for My Lady…..the same woman I have now been married to for 25 years.

She has NEVER been ‘average’.

I think that selling your sexual favors is – in most cases – bad for you. I think that with a little study a case could be made for saying the same of belonging to a Garage Band in high school. I think that a LOT of things that people do fairly routinely are bad for them. I make a distinction between acts that I think are ‘bad’, and acts that I thinks should be illegal. The consequences of selling oneself (for sex, or any other reason) are not something that the State has any business messing with.

I suspect that a halfway honest Prostitute (much less Courtesan) does her soul less damage plying her trade than the typical Political Crusader does following his avocation.

There are definitely some women who should NOT be involved in prostitution because it feeds into their instabilities (one example is the girl I called “Barbie“). But as you and I agree, that’s their decision to make and nobody else’s.

Thank you for this article. In a way, these anti-prostitution laws are like age of consent laws. The idea with AoC of course is that a very young person is not mature enough to decide whether or not to have sex, so the law makes the decision for her. And then of course we can argue about “how old is old enough.” But with the anti-prostitution laws the answer is “you are never old enough.” This needs to be spoken about, and I thank you for doing so.

I would argue that the Age Of Consent laws aren’t that simple. I suspect that in part they grew up to put an end to disputes between parties with differing opinions as to when a young woman could give consent, could enter into marriage, etc. Less a matter of “You are too young to make your own mind up, so we’ll do it for you.” than “Elder Smith, we hear that you don’t think your twenty year old daughter should be allowed to stay with the man she was married to in a church you disapprove of, but she is, damnit, and adult. Cross her name out of the family bible, and stop pestering us.”

Actually, “age of consent” laws were designed not to protect girls, but to protect property rights. At one time nubile daughters were a valuable family possession; an arranged marriage to a wealthy man could benefit the whole family for life. So if the girl went off and did something stupid, like giving her virginity to some poor-but-interesting young peasant, her saleability was ruined and the family was out a very valuable piece of property. So “age of consent” laws were established to punish young men who foolishly vandalized that property; the “consent” age set in the laws was that at which a girl was assumed to be married by, usually 14-16.

Of course as society changed the excuses for laws did as well, and AOC laws were recast as “protection” for girls (and now they’re even applied to boys) and often raised to be brought into harmony with the campaign to extend childhood.

Yes, but this was a short letter, so I stuck with the present. The modern justification of AoC is that the law has to protect those who are not old enough to make their own sexual decisions, and the anti-prostitution laws seem to assume that a woman is never old enough.

“Mine is on a personal blog, which I have never tried to pretend is objective” — fair enough, I concede that point.

“If you’re going to claim that’s not so, I’m afraid the burden of proof is on you” — Well my point here was not that I can prove that this isn’t so. I compared these empiric claims to the Russell teapot in that I don’t know if claims such as “Every single action in life is some kind of exchange,” “virtually all men win or buy sex from women,” can be proven or disproved. At the risk of sounding repetitive, these claims, in my view, ignore or negate the transcendent/sublime — just as if I were to say that I buy a ticket at the theater and the theater shows me a film, end of story. Well, as I think we have all experienced at one time or another, viewing a work of art is often far more than a simple exchange. For me at least, most of life is dialectic (inferring the spirit of the absolute/synthesis) — acknowledging transaction, and also all that transcends.

But David, no matter how much you enjoy the movie, or what you get out of it, you still would not have been admitted had you not paid. And I suspect that if you had showed up at your wife’s house for your first date looking like a bum, told her you were unemployed and had no intention of getting work, and insisted she pay her own way, there would never have been a second date. The fact that a transaction becomes much more than its most basic form does not invalidate the fact that it started as a transaction.

Speaking of movies, there’s some wonderful radio show hosts who put their movies out for FREE on Youtube and other websites. 1 I listen to nearly every day works 8 hours a day and then does his radio show at night for no pay. These hosts DO take donations but don’t “guilt trip” or use other ###*** tactics like that to get donations. They also repeatedly thank their donors on the shows. These movies have greatly changed my life. I’m not being dramatic here. They really have. I’ve learned things I needed to learn YEARS ago, but was in what I call “me-world”. I’ve also learned a lot from movies I had to pay to see. So, you can get wonderful information, etc., for free OR paying for a ticket.

It looks as though we really are on the same page here, the only real difference being emphasis; in the future I will be careful to give you credit for discussing/thinking about ideas on a much broader scale than I initially realized — (wholly my shortcoming!)

Maggie, I feel the need to follow up on David’s point. Even if we admit that ultimately men purchase sex from women, how do we sell this to the general public so that support is garnered for decriminalization? It’s the fuzzy middle that needs swaying, but Ozzie and Harriet don’t want to be reminded what their relationship is based on.

I don’t believe it can be sold to the general public without decriminalization. Until the courts forced cops to stop persecuting homosexuals, most of them stayed “in the closet” and nobody got to know what they were like. Personally, I don’t think decriminalization will come by slow stages any more than abortion did; I think sooner or later there will be a landmark case (as in Ontario) where an important judge overturns prostitution laws, and then even if that decision is reversed by a higher court the ice will have been broken and eventually the SCOTUS will rule them all unconstitutional. What will then follow will be two generations of culture-wars over it (as we currently see with abortion and “gay” rights), but we’ll at least be in a position of strength trying to repel attacks rather than a position of weakness attempting to storm the castle.

Thank you for bringing Mr. Akst’s article to our attention, Maggie. I have added my own thanks to him – and a brief explanation of the case for decriminalization, as I see it – to the “Comments” on the article, on the Boston Herald site.

I don’t blame any man who has actually seen professional girls (even in cases like yours) from hiding his true identity (especially with the Swedish Reek on the air these days), any more than I blame girls like myself from hiding their identities. But when a man who doesn’t regularly patronize us opens himself up to possible accusations in order to stand up for a principle, that most definitely takes balls. 🙂

With apologies to Gertrude Stein, collectivism is collectivism is collectivism is collectivism. Whether the excuse is “morality” or “order” or “fairness” or “logic” or “women’s rights” or whatever other excuse one cares to make up, the group has NO RIGHT to impose its will on the individual who neither desires nor requires that control; such imposition is the closest I can come to the most basic definition of “evil”.

Please don’t fall for the ###*** that many (NOT ALL, thank God) in society want you to believe: if you’re in a small group, you don’t count. Don’t bother speaking out. It won’t do any good. Your group isn’t even important enough for those against you to be bothered with (I really love that 1…eyeroll). No one can REALLY change anything for the better so why bother trying? Use your time for something that’ll WORK. 1 person can’t change the world for the better. Things will always be horrible so why bother to even try to change them? There’s others besides these. These people KNOW the power of the individual PLUS small groups and hate it and are terrified of it. ###*** them. Thank God for the individuals and small groups through all time who said ###*** these lies and took action anyway. They’re disproven these lies over and over. YES!

Those horrible conservatives…yes, they’re all sick. Just like those horrible liberals: they’re all sick, too, just in DIFFERENT ways from the conservatives. Let’s just write them all off with blanket statements. Did you ever think the conservatives might think you’re sick, i.e., he’s sick and so is everyone else like him. Would you like to get that judgment? Just wondering.

When I was seeing others for sex only friendships it was always in the back of my mind to be open about it 1 day. Until the past few years I wasn’t “ready”. This doesn’t mean I’m going to broadcast it everywhere. I always think of an ex co-worker of mine when I say this. This man announced at least 10 times a day “I’m gay”. To be honest, from the 1st day he came to work, I had a strong feeling he was gay. But, I kept that to myself as HATE how some think it’s “great” to “out” people before they’re ready to come out with it. Also hate outing people that haven’t even told you DIRECTLY they ARE gay. We didn’t have long to wait for him to come out with it (wink). From then on it was brought up every day. I don’t want to be on this level in certain places, especially the workplace. I know I work with at least a few who would be totally disgusted with my having an arrangement plus the years of wildness. But, have come to the point with it if they outright asked about it, I wouldn’t lie. I have come out with my story to 1 person so far at work after feeling from many conversations it was safe to do so. I was very glad to find confirmation that it WAS safe to do so! I’m glad I’ve made it to my goal, but also feel tact is needed with it just like it is with telling my story as an MVS. I don’t talk about my MVS status at work either without an opening that “fits” or COULD fit. I used to hide this status completely at work for various reasons. I’m through with that in the past few years also. However, with MVS even though there’s ###*** out there who’ll always attack us personally, there’s a LOT less stigma with it than with being a “wild woman”.

As I pointed out in my column of the 16th, even Jezebel made fun of it. And the director of the “She-man Whore Haters’ Club” (i.e. the “Coalition Against Trafficking in Women”) claimed they didn’t go far enough because they don’t directly call for imposition of the Swedish Model.

Thought for discussion, if anyone is up for it; If it can be said that, on some level, most men pay (one way or another) for sex, Can it not be said that most women pay (for one thing or another) WITH sex? And if that is so, isn’t it a matter of some importance to understand what the women are paying for?

After all, transactions are EXCHANGES …. even the ones that boil down to “I’ll give you what you want if you otherwise leave me alone”. Or, for that matter “I’m going to give you something I think you should have, and expect the opportunity to feel good about myself in return.”, which is frankly coercive when you think about it.

I think it’s a great topic for discussion, CSP, and don’t worry because a number of my readers feel this blog already is a philosophy course. 😉

I’ll start by saying that prior to my turning pro, the second exchange you mention (“I’m going to give you something I think you should have, and expect the opportunity to feel good about myself in return”) was absolutely my number one reason for giving anyone sex.

As reasons for proposing bed-sport with somebody, that is one of the better ones … provided you don’t get all passive aggressive about it.

I mean, “I like sex, and I like you, and I happen to be horny, how about it?”
is probably the least complicated reason, and from there on things get progressively murky, neh?

I realized that I was headed for early-onset geezer-hood some years back while working in a mall, when I became aware that when I watched nubile young teenieboppers ripple by my first thought was “Yeah, but she’d want to talk afterwards, and she doesn’t look like she has anything between her ears but meringue”. Since then I have spent some time thinking about the sex drive, and realizing that one of the reasons that our reaction to it is so seldom reasonable is that it resides in the part of our brain that is pre-reason. So we can try to impose reason upon it, with varying degrees of success, but it will never be reasonable at base.

It therefore behooves us to be very gentle with each-other on the subject.

I like that quote at the beginning of this entry. I’ve had various girlfriends, and the ones I liked best could all carry on an intelligent conversation. The woman I am now involved with is smarter, in some ways, than I am, and knowledgable in fields where I am ignorant. She’s also not at all shy about telling me when she thinks I’m being very silly.

for some time i’ve been compiling a paper whichoutlines how i believe prostitution should be handled and how to protect sex workers. It should be like any other corpoation or business. Put someone qualified in charge, add state inspections, anonymous complaints, and health benefits… It should not be illegal to sell what its perfectly legal to give away. My intention of the paper is to not just sit around with an opinion, but to DO something with that opinion

The most important part of decriminalization is that the women need to be self supporting. They need licensing fees that would pay for free health care, they need to pay state and federal taxes, unemployment, social security, but most importantly they need to pay into a fund that would be to create long term service for the women who do want to exit the adult industry..
There should not be any special requirements for licensing than there is for any other profession. each escort should be able to choice, when she works, where she works and who she choices to see, what prices she charges. Nobody has the right to DICTATE how she conducts her personal business. But I do not agree with allowing them to solicit people in public.
We also need to stop the abuse from law enforcement against sex workers and the public discrimination and create laws to stop hate crimes against sex workers.
All women must have the Right to call the cops and report a violence against herself.

I don’t know of any other business which is required to pay into a fund to help people leave that business. I think perhaps government should provide that, if it’s needed, and pay for it out of the money no longer spent fighting prostitution.

Other than that, yeah, we’re not only on the same page, but the same paragraph.

I also like it when I find some author online supporting prostitution or calling for legalisation. (Outside of the libertarian websites, where I see it all the time.)
So I was thrilled today when I found Peter David (the comic-book writer) calling for legalisation on his website today. It was just a reprinted article from the 1990s, and it was only a few short paragraphs in a larger piece, but I’d never seen it before. He’s normally a pretty standard-issue mainstream liberal, so I had no reason to expect him to be so rational on this issue.

Swaay.org is taking on Aston Kutchers lies, and rasing money for the first sex worker billboard in LA, pleasse helpsupport our causr and send in a donation today.
To learn the FACTS about sex workers go to swaay.org

Whorish Media

Maggie on Twitter

Boring but necessary legal stuff

All original content on this website (i.e. all of my columns, pages and anything else which I write myself) is protected under international copyright law as of the time it is posted; though you may link to it as you please or quote passages (as long as you attribute the quote to me), please do not reproduce whole columns without my express written permission. In other words, you have to say "pretty please with sugar on top" first, and then wait for me to say "okey-dokey".